Goal-line technology,good or bad ?

[MattBackHome]

Obviously it's a good thing.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Good. They should also consult a 4th official with television evidence of key decisions as well. Football is being outdone by rugby yet again.

I'll state from the start, I'm completely against that, but I'm still keen to listen to how you think that would work.

Seeing as Rugby has natural stops in play, how would you do this in football?

 

[Easy 10]

Exactly. There could be a goal scored 45 seconds after a slightly contentious tackle in the middle of the pitch. And we ALL know what the manager (who just conceded the goal) would say.

"Well, the ref should have reviewed that tackle because I think it was a foul and they wouldn't have scored". It would open up a family sized tin of wigglies.

Indeed. The desperation to have a goal disallowed for something, anything, or a penalty either awarded or turned over, would just ramp up the pressure on refs to review more and more decisions. And refs would end up relying on it themselves even more, just to cover their own arses.

This "utopia" where a ref takes 30 seconds to review the odd decision here and there, and gets it bang on as a result, would simply never exist. And thats before you even consider how the hell you incorporate freezing the game to check the telly if the ball isn't dead.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Indeed. The desperation to have a goal disallowed for something, anything, or a penalty either awarded or turned over, would just ramp up the pressure on refs to review more and more decisions. And refs would end up relying on it themselves even more, just to cover their own arses.

This "utopia" where a ref takes 30 seconds to review the odd decision here and there, and gets it bang on as a result, would simply never exist. And thats before you even consider how the hell you incorporate freezing the game to check the telly if the ball isn't dead.

Also the issue remains that the game has to, fundementally, appeal to those paying to go watch it. I don't want to sit there watching players scrathcing their arse whilst waiting for Mark Clattenberg to hear back from the video ref whether there was a foul, only for him to say "no, it wasn't a foul" and then start with a bloody drop ball.

SkySports would, of course, make it more bearable as they do in-depth analysis on whether Bridcutt's left front stud grazed the ball first before making contract with the heel or Michael Brown.

People who think football can do it because of Rugby either:

Don't understand how football works
Don't understand how rugby works.
Both

 

[somerset]

You're advocating bringing it in to decide if theres been a foul or not -
.

Please read my mail again, I advocated nothing of the sort.....

 

[ali jenkins]

When do you stop the game? Some decisions do only need one replay but how often on MOTD do they spend 5mins talking about something with 5 different angles and it still isn't clear if it was a foul or not?

 

[Easy 10]

Please read my mail again, I advocated nothing of the sort.....

Errr...

the more important reviews should be for penalty decisions, they do really change the outcome of games, and happen more frequently than disallowed goal scenarios.

You are not picking up on my point, a ref would ask for a review if for instance he sees a foul or handball in or around the box,... the question he will ask of the video reviewer upstairs would be something like "I have blown for a handball/foul that I think is inside the box, can you give me any reason why it cant be given?" .... so its a case that the ref has seen and blown for something and needs support/confirmation.

So yes, you ARE advocating it being brought in to decide if there's been a foul or not. And you're wanting it for the most crucial (and therefore by definition) what will turn out to be the most controversial decisions to make calls on. The game-changing ones. Whether its in or outside the box is a line call of course, but do you think thats ALL it would be brought in for ?

Dangerous.

 

[somerset]

Errr...





So yes, you ARE advocating it being brought in to decide if there's been a foul or not. And you're wanting it for the most crucial (and therefore by definition) what will turn out to be the most controversial decisions to make calls on. The game-changing ones. Whether its in or outside the box is a line call of course, but do you think thats ALL it would be brought in for ?

Dangerous.

Silly billy,... no, simply to decide, once a foul was given, if the foul was inside our outside the box, JUST BOX RELATED ISSUES. Was there an offside before the goal was scored, again in cases where the ref decides it was a marginal call.
The ref has already made the decision that it was a foul, is it or is it not a penalty, is it or is it not inside the box..... marginal calls see!?!

Not dangerous, safe,... the more critical calls are the ones they need to be sure on, not petty throw ins or middle of the pitch fouls,...... box related issues.

Never mind.

 

[Easy 10]

When do you stop the game? Some decisions do only need one replay but how often on MOTD do they spend 5mins talking about something with 5 different angles and it still isn't clear if it was a foul or not?

Precisely. Even after a video review, you're still ultimately relying on the referees interpretation of an incident.

All you can ask for is an honest decision. Its not always going to be the right one, but the alternatives with technology bring too many complications to ever be implemented without major disruption and swathes of new rules to accomodate them.

Hawkeye is fine, no problem with a line call. But thats as far as it should go.

 

[pork pie]

I'll state from the start, I'm completely against that, but I'm still keen to listen to how you think that would work.

Seeing as Rugby has natural stops in play, how would you do this in football?

There is absolutely no reason why a Ref could not ask for, for example, confirmation about his penalty decisions, there will be a natural gap as he will (or should have) stopped play anyway. How often do we see a penalty awarded to someone that clearly dived, and also the other way round.

Also, how many times does television replay show that there were infringements leading up to goals that were awarded. Play will have been stopped, it in not much of an issue to check there were no infringements leading up to the ball being in the net.

If the Ref thinks something happened, but feels uncertain about it, he can easily ask for clarification at the nexy stopage, and take play back if necessary.

Just because it will not stop all of the issues, it does not mean that it should not be used to address as many as possible.

 

[pork pie]

Silly billy,... no, simply to decide, once a foul was given, if the foul was inside our outside the box, JUST BOX RELATED ISSUES. Was there an offside before the goal was scored, again in cases where the ref decides it was a marginal call.
The ref has already made the decision that it was a foul, is it or is it not a penalty, is it or is it not inside the box..... marginal calls see!?!

Not dangerous, safe,... the more critical calls are the ones they need to be sure on, not petty throw ins or middle of the pitch fouls,...... box related issues.

Never mind.

Another good example of how it would help. Hopefully, it would stop some of the playacting that has come into our game.

Another good example would be Red Cards. They can ruin a match, but a TV replay would enable better judgements on them. We all no that Red Cards ofen get overturned upon appeal.

 

[Easy 10]

Silly billy,... no, simply to decide, once a foul was given, if the foul was inside our outside the box, JUST BOX RELATED ISSUES. Was there an offside before the goal was scored, again in cases where the ref decides it was a marginal call.
The ref has already made the decision that it was a foul, is it or is it not a penalty, is it or is it not inside the box..... marginal calls see!?!

Thats not what you said initially - you said reviews on important decisions such as penalties. There could be a case for a line-call as to whether it occured in or outside the box (remember St Marys !), As for video reviews for offside - that just sends a chill down my spine. Not every offside is a straightforward call. Was he interfering with play ? Was that 1st or 2nd phase ? Oh my good god, you really want a video review brought in to unpick all THAT ?

Chaos.

 

[somerset]

Thats not what you said initially - you said reviews on important decisions such as penalties. There could be a case for a line-call as to whether it occured in or outside the box (remember St Marys !), As for video reviews for offside - that just sends a chill down my spine. Not every offside is a straightforward call. Was he interfering with play ? Was that 1st or 2nd phase ? Oh my good god, you really want a video review brought in to unpick all THAT ?

Chaos.

But it wont be used to make a negative into a positive,... the referee still makes the decisions, he asks for confirmation once he has already made a decision,.... it would be impossible to have a mechanism to turn a non-decision by a referee into a decision, that's not what is being discussed here and that would indeed interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily.

No, simply as a support or confirmation of the refs decision that he has already made.... ie. Is his decision correct?

 

[father_and_son]

Goal line technology - absolutely. Whether Hawkeye is the best system - no so sure.

I'd rather have some sensor technology linked to a light mounted on/in the crossbar (light comes on everytime the ball crosses the line - ref looking at that direction anyway so easy for him to make an instant, correct decision) rather than a camera based one with a video ref and playback. Happy to be proved wrong on this one though because the playbacks in Tennis and Rugby both work well with the crowd and pace of their respective games. Football could adapt and make in work but I'm not sure that I'd want the game stopped if there wasn't a natural break to have a decision reviewed.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Also, how many times does television replay show that there were infringements leading up to goals that were awarded. Play will have been stopped, it in not much of an issue to check there were no infringements leading up to the ball being in the net.
.

Right so say it's Brighton against Manchester United.

In the middle of the pitch, Bridcutt puts a tackle in on Anderson which the ref is not sure is a foul or not, however the ball falls to Man Utd. Anderson is limping claiming its a foul but United run up the pitch and a shot is blocked py El Abd, the ball now breaks Bridcutt. He runs away from the limping Anderson and who plays it over the top for Ulloa who scores.

So does the ref now stop the game, review whether it was a foul by Bridcutt 1 minute ago and disallow Brightons goal as there was no stoppage in play since the original foul?

That ones one of the more SIMPLE scenarios. I could make these REALLY difficult.

 

[pork pie]

Thats not what you said initially - you said reviews on important decisions such as penalties. There could be a case for a line-call as to whether it occured in or outside the box (remember St Marys !), As for video reviews for offside - that just sends a chill down my spine. Not every offside is a straightforward call. Was he interfering with play ? Was that 1st or 2nd phase ? Oh my good god, you really want a video review brought in to unpick all THAT ?

Chaos.

Why chaos? Surely, if the Ref and his team make their decision based upon all the information available, it would be much better?

How many times is play stopped when players are on side, for example? If it was allowed to run if linos were not 100% certain, they could be less quick with their flags knowing there would be a review before the goal was given? Sorry but I do not understand why people would not wish to use all the technology available to ensure their are as few incorrect decisions as possible.

This is a big money sport now, it needs to be as fair as possible. How many would be happy for photo-finished to be stopped in horse, dog or even human sprint racing, with a guy being forced to decide who won a race?

 

[Mellotron]

Right so say it's Brighton against Manchester United.

In the middle of the pitch, Bridcutt puts a tackle in on Anderson which the ref is not sure is a foul or not, however the ball falls to Man Utd. Anderson is limping claiming its a foul but United run up the pitch and a shot is blocked py El Abd, the ball now breaks Bridcutt. He runs away from the limping Anderson and who plays it over the top for Ulloa who scores.

So does the ref now stop the game, review whether it was a foul by Bridcutt 1 minute ago and disallow Brightons goal as there was no stoppage in play since the original foul?

That ones one of the more SIMPLE scenarios. I could make these REALLY difficult.

No because the ball fell to United, so it was play on. Even if it was a foul, the advantage was United's so when Brighton win back the ball, only what happens from that point on matters.

 

[mikeyjh]

Bad for me, I love the fact that there are refereeing mistakes in football, it's absolutely part of the character of the game. Lampards 'goal' is a classic example, we look back and laugh and can claim that we were robbed. Even though we were sh*t. Brilliant!

To add - Anyone who believes that it will stop at goal-line technology is being naive. We'll have video reviews within 2 years, giving more opportunity for punters to buy popcorn and coke from a vendor.....

 

[somerset]

Right so say it's Brighton against Manchester United.

In the middle of the pitch, Bridcutt puts a tackle in on Anderson which the ref is not sure is a foul or not, however the ball falls to Man Utd. Anderson is limping claiming its a foul but United run up the pitch and a shot is blocked py El Abd, the ball now breaks Bridcutt. He runs away from the limping Anderson and who plays it over the top for Ulloa who scores.

So does the ref now stop the game, review whether it was a foul by Bridcutt 1 minute ago and disallow Brightons goal as there was no stoppage in play since the original foul?

That ones one of the more SIMPLE scenarios. I could make these REALLY difficult.

If that is a simple scenario, I am a monkeys whatsit...

The way it works in rugby is that at the point the try is scored, the touch judge and the referee look at each other for confirmation that they could see no issues ( or otherwise), only if one or both of them think there is some doubt about the validity of the try do they refer upstairs. At that point the question is usually "Is there any reason this try cannot be given?" or something along those lines. Its really not that complex, its all about the immediate leadup to the score, not something that happened several phases before the score.

...and the reviews barely take a minute to come to a decision,.... footballers would still be arguing with the referee or each other long after the decision is made.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

No because the ball fell to United, so it was play on. Even if it was a foul, the advantage was United's so when Brighton win back the ball, only what happens from that point on matters.

But Anderson was injured from Bridcutts illegal challenge which should have been ruled a foul. Anderson could not get back and challenge Bridcutt leaving him and easy run through midfield.